Li v Nzme Publishing Limited
[2025] NZHC 2986
•13 October 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2025-404-000897
[2025] NZHC 2986
BETWEEN JIAMING LI
Appellant
AND
NZME PUBLISHING LIMITED
First Respondent
YU HONGMING
Second RespondentJIANG CHAOYANG
Third RespondentJIANG ZHUO
Fourth Respondent
Hearing: 8 October 2025 Appearances:
Appellant in person
J Edwards and JO Renner for First Respondent
Judgment:
13 October 2025
JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J
This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 13 October 2025 at 2 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Russell McVeagh, Auckland. Copy to: Appellant.
LI v NZME PUBLISHING LTD [2025] NZHC 2986 [13 October 2025]
The appeal
[1] The New Zealand Herald1 published, online, three articles about Mr Li. Mr Li applied to the District Court for relief under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015.2 That Court dismissed the application.
[2]Mr Li appeals.3 He remains self-represented.
Background
[3]The background is best introduced by summarising the articles.
Article 1, published 26 February 2023: “Canada suitcase murder: Convicted killer Leo Li enters NZ with fake name, fighting to stay on as refugee”
[4] Mr Li met Amanda Zhao, the victim, while at university in Canada. In October 2002, Ms Zhao went missing. She and Mr Li were then living together. Mr Li told (Canadian) police Ms Zhao went shopping and never came home. Ms Zhao’s body was found later that month, in a suitcase, nearby.
[5] Mr Li returned to China. After extensive diplomacy, he was arrested for, charged with, and convicted of, murder. In 2014, Mr Li’s conviction was reduced to manslaughter. His life sentence was replaced with a term of seven years’ imprisonment.
[6] In December 2020, Mr Li and his family moved to Auckland. Mr Li claimed to be a refugee. He said his name was Zongyuan Li, and that he had a clean (police) record. Mr Li’s refugee claim was unsuccessful. An Immigration and Protection Officer considered Mr Li had “not been forthcoming in his documents and statements”; that he had “presented different identities”; and Mr Li was “accustomed to … deception”.
1 The New Zealand Herald is owned by the first respondent, NZME Publishing Ltd.
2 The Act.
3 An appeal in this context is a rehearing, but Mr Li must demonstrate error or persuade this Court to a different conclusion from that below. See Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, [2008] 2 NZLR 141.
[7] Mr Li was interviewed by the journalist who wrote the article, Lincoln Tan. Mr Li acknowledged being convicted and sentenced in relation to Ms Zhao’s death, but said, “It was a political set-up by the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] to get me into trouble, I believe Amanda could still be alive and walking around somewhere”. Mr Li said he was persecuted by the Chinese government because of his support for Tibet’s independence; he moved to Tibet in 2008 and there joined pro-democracy protests. Mr Li said the Chinese government “knew I was totally innocent but had to give me some sort of conviction … to give face to the Canadian Government”. Mr Li said he was appealing the decision to decline refugee status.
Article 2, published 28 February 2023: “Tibetans angry convicted Chinese murderer using ‘Tibetan cause’ to fight deportation”
[8] Members of the Tibetan community in Auckland were “outraged” Mr Li was using the Tibetan cause to support his refugee claim. A former president of the Auckland Tibetan Association said Mr Li began appearing at protests “from out of nowhere”, carrying a photo of the Dalai Lama and wearing the Tibetan flag. The former president said Mr Li was “not Tibetan … and does not speak our language”.
[9]Unlike article 1, Mr Li “did not respond to the Herald’s emails or return calls”.
Article 3, published 9 March 2023: “Canada suitcase murder: Mother ‘shocked and angry’ that daughter’s killer is in NZ and fighting to stay as refugee”
[10]Article 3 focused on Canadian developments in relation to Mr Li.
[11] A Canadian Member of Parliament said Mr Li had at least five identities and failed to pay compensation to the victim’s family, despite being ordered to do so in 2014, when his sentence was reduced. The Parliamentarian said the victim’s mother was “shocked and angry” Mr Li was in New Zealand and urged the New Zealand government “to not be fooled by lies”.
[12]Mr Li “could not be reached for comment”.
Later events
[13] In August 2024, Mr Li complained to the New Zealand Media Council about the articles. The Council exercised its discretion to accept a late complaint, given Mr Li “claimed not to have been aware of the publications”, but dismissed the complaint:
The Media Council does not consider there is a clear basis for this complaint. Most importantly, it has not been shown how the stories breached Principle (1). No evidence has been provided to show how the stories were inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced. The articles contained serious allegations against Mr Li, but they also reported his response to those allegations.
It is accepted by New Zealand authorities that Mr Li was convicted of murder by a Chinese Court and that this was reduced on appeal to manslaughter. The articles took information from a public report and quotes from others including Mr Li.
The alleged use of a false identity and documents to enter NZ was confirmed by the Immigration New Zealand report. In the interest of fairness and balance Mr Li was given the opportunity to comment and explain. He was also given the opportunity to respond to the allegation that he left Canada to evade prosecutions. The matter of Mr Li acting as an agent of the Chinese government was clearly a quote from a leader of the Tibetan community.
[14] On 7 October 2024, Mr Li complained to Netsafe about the articles. Netsafe declined to take any action, beyond advising Mr Li it was open to him to apply to the District Court for relief under the Act.
[15] In or about March 2025, Mr Li took that step. Among other things, Mr Li sought orders the articles be taken down and a correction published. Mr Li filed the application on a without notice basis. Mr Li contended he had been defamed “as a killer without any legal evidence or basis”.
[16]Mr Li also sought relief against other respondents, as to which see [30].
The District Court’s decision
[17] Judge I D R Cameron concluded Mr Li had failed to establish “a serious or continuing breach of any communication principles”.4 There was no evidence of falsity “in respect to the fact … the applicant was convicted and imprisoned for the death of Ms Zhao”;5 Mr Li “consented to an interview with the Herald where he disclosed personal information about himself, knowing … this would be published”;6 publication did not amount to harassment; and the articles were not intended to incite or encourage harm.
[18] Consequently, the Judge dismissed the application, observing it had “an element of vexatiousness”.7
Mr Li’s case on appeal
[19] Mr Li offered wide-ranging submissions on appeal. But his core contentions are ultimately threefold. First, Mr Li contends the Judge erred procedurally by determining the application on the papers, rather than convening a hearing. Second, Mr Li argues the Judge should have granted the application because the articles are false, including that he is a convicted killer. Mr Li said (in his written submissions) he has “no criminal record anywhere in the world!”. Third, Mr Li says the articles have caused he and his family great harm.
Analysis
[20] The Act was analysed by this Court in Police v B;8 Hooper v Gee;9 and Tucker v Pere.10 In short, it seeks to deter, prevent, and mitigate harm caused by digital communications, and to provide victims of harmful (digital) communications with a quick and efficient means of redress.11 One such means is that in issue: an application to the District Court. By s 12(2), that Court must not grant an application (for redress)
4 Li v NZME Publishing Ltd DC Auckland CIV-2025-004-000567 (31 March 2025) at [25].
5 At [26].
6 At [27].
7 At [34].
8 Police v B [2017] NZHC 526, [2017] 3 NZLR 203.
9 Hooper v Gee [2022] NZHC 1854.
10 Tucker v Pere [2024] NZHC 3209.
11 The Act, s 3.
unless satisfied there has been a threatened serious breach, a serious breach, or a repeated breach of one or more communication principles; and that breach has caused or is likely to cause harm to an individual. The communication principles are in s 6, which reads:
6 Communication principles
(1)The communication principles are—
Principle 1
A digital communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual.
Principle 2
A digital communication should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing.
Principle 3
A digital communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.
Principle 4
A digital communication should not be indecent or obscene.
Principle 5
A digital communication should not be used to harass an individual.
Principle 6
A digital communication should not make a false allegation.
Principle 7
A digital communication should not contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.
Principle 8
A digital communication should not incite or encourage anyone to send a message to an individual for the purpose of causing harm to the individual.
Principle 9
A digital communication should not incite or encourage an individual to commit suicide.
Principle 10
A digital communication should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.
(2)In performing functions or exercising powers under this Act, the Approved Agency and courts must—
(a) take account of the communication principles; and
(b) act consistently with the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
[21]Relevant also is s 16(1), which reads:
16 Mode of hearing and evidence
(1)The court must, having regard to the circumstances of the particular case, direct that an application be determined—
(a) just on the basis of written material provided to it; or
(b) by way of a hearing involving oral submissions.
[22] Section 16 addresses Mr Li’s submission of procedural error; the provision allowed the Judge to determine the application on the papers. Mr Li said doing so prejudiced him, because the Judge recorded two articles had been “provided in a format that [was] unreadable apart from [their] titles”,12 so relevant information was overlooked by the Judge. I disagree for the reason the Judge gave: the two unreadable articles were “irrelevant to the application as they are not digital communications”.13 There is also a measure of irony in Mr Li’s procedural complaint, as there was no evident basis for his use of without notice procedure.14 These reasons also address Mr Li’s submission that the adopted procedure contravened the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
[23] Mr Li’s core contention of falsity — hence an alleged breach of Principle 6 — is based upon a misapprehension that became evident at the hearing. Mr Li argued the
12 At [8].
13 At [8] (emphasis added). The Act concerns digital communications only. Related communications using other media could be relevant to an assessment of whether a digital communication amounted to harassment. Contrary to Mr Li’s submissions, there is no evidence the articles were intended to harass.
14 Had Mr Li been legally represented, it is highly likely any application would have been on notice.
articles are false because the respondent had failed to offer any evidence in support of their truth. However, as the person asserting a breach of Principle 6, it was incumbent on Mr Li to satisfy the Judge the articles contained false allegations — that onus lay on him. Nothing Mr Li placed before the Judge, or me, reached that threshold.
[24] I give an example. Mr Li filed a document in this Court, seemingly from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, that he does not have any conviction in Canada. But the articles do not allege a conviction in Canada. They allege a conviction in China.
[25] I asked Mr Li more than once at the hearing whether he accepted he had a conviction in China. Mr Li would not answer the question, other than by saying it was for the respondent(s) to prove he did have such a conviction.15 Again, this is a misconception. In this context, it is for Mr Li to establish the falsity of the articles, not for a respondent to establish otherwise. I record the obvious: an application for relief under the Act is not a defamation claim (in which truth falls to a defendant to establish).
[26] While on this topic, I note the first article included Mr Li’s position on his Chinese conviction. As will be apparent from the earlier summary, Mr Li acknowledged to the journalist, Mr Tan, that he had such a conviction, albeit he was innocent. Mr Li submitted he did not consent to being interviewed by Mr Tan. I am unable to accept that submission. Mr Li’s statements to Mr Tan were almost entirely exculpatory. I draw the (obvious) inference Mr Li believed his position could be improved by speaking to Mr Tan, and that is why he did so in relation to the first article.
[27] The only other potentially engaged principle is Principle 1, which is concerned with the disclosure of sensitive personal facts. I am inclined to accept the articles do disclose sensitive personal facts about Mr Li. However, as Mr Edwards submitted on behalf of the first respondent, much of the sensitive information came from Mr Li himself when he spoke to Mr Tan. And, as Mr Edwards also submitted, s 6(2) of the Act requires the Courts to act consistently with the rights and freedoms contained in
15 Mr Li appeared remotely at the hearing, with the benefit of an interpreter.
the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, hence the right under s 14, which protects the freedom to impart information. That Mr Li has a conviction in China in connection with Ms Zhao’s death was a matter of public interest. Or, as the Judge observed, the Act “was not intended to target legitimate journalism”.16
[28] Mr Li’s remaining submission is that he and his family have suffered harm in consequence of the articles. I am inclined to accept that submission, particularly given the two psychological reports provided by Mr Li. However, in this context, it is not sufficient for an applicant to have suffered harm because of a digital communication. The Court must not grant an application unless also satisfied there has been a threatened serious breach, a serious breach, or a repeated breach, of one or more communication principles. Harm absent a breach does not permit relief.
[29] For these reasons, I am unpersuaded of error on the part of the Judge. Indeed, I accept Mr Edwards’ submission the decision is correct.
Other respondents
[30] Mr Li’s application also sought relief in relation to three other respondents. The Judge dealt with this aspect of the application this way:
[29] In respect of Jiang Chaoyang there is no evidence of any communication from him at all. In respect of Jiang Zhuo there is only one digital communication from him, which falls well short of harassment.
[30] In respect of Yu Hongming there have been only four incidents of communication regarding the applicant in more than two years. The communications on 7 October 2024 and 16 January 2025 involved replies in a group chat to messages from other persons, such as persons defending the applicant. The messages on 20 March 2025 also do not seem to involve a direct attack on the applicant, but on a person supporting him. In my view these do not constitute harassment of the applicant. The remaining messages on 26 February 2023 arguably involve “attacks” directly on the applicant. However, one instance such as this is insufficient to fall within the meaning of harassment.
[31]Again, I agree with the Judge.
16 At [27].
Costs
[32]I invited brief submissions on costs at the hearing.
[33] Mr Edwards said indemnity costs might be appropriate but was content to seek scale costs only. Mr Li said he could not meaningfully comment on costs, but would go to the United Nations if he was unsuccessful.
[34] I am satisfied NZME Publishing Ltd should have 2B scale costs, confined to one counsel, given it was (a) successful and (b) incurred costs in defending the appeal.
Result
[35] The appeal is dismissed. Costs are awarded against Mr Li in accordance with [34].
……………………………..
Downs J
3
1